The CT delegation and the Patriot Act

The state's five members of Congress often vote as a block but the delegation was split over last week's vote to reauthorize several provisions of the controversial Patriot Act.

Reps. John Larson, Rosa DeLauro and Jim Himes all voted against the measure, while Reps. Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney voted in favor. (The three provisions -- which give the government the ability to use roving wiretaps to monitor suspects; obtain business and library records and other personal information and follow non-citizens who have not previously been identified as terrorist suspects -- were approved by a vote of 279 to 143.)

The vote extends those provisions for 90 days but even many of those who voted in favor said the Patriot Act needs to be fixed to address the concerns raised by civil libertarians and privacy rights advocates about the reach and powers of the government. The temporary extension granted Thursday just delays an inevitable showdown on the issue of balancing national security with individual liberties.

"The Patriot Act does not strike the right balance between protecting this nation and protecting civil liberties,'' Murphy said. "We need new legislation which includes real checks on executive power so that the new tools that law enforcement legitimately needs are not abused. That being said, with several provisions of the act due to expire, that conversation about reform cannot happen now. I believe that this short term extension of the act will allow us to craft a long term solution that will recognize the new challenges presented by omnipresent terrorist threats, while respecting civil liberties."

"We in Congress should have found a way to fix this by now,'' Murphy added. And, he noted, his patience is wearing thin. "This extension gives us one more shot to get it right, and if we don't, I'm not going to vote for another one."

Courtney has staked out a similar stance. "I strongly oppose permanent extension of the Patriot Act in its current form. I am unwilling, however, to allow the provisions in use today to expire without having a balanced alternative in place,'' he said. "This bipartisan and temporary extension will maintain the status quo while Congress continues work on a long-term solution that protects civil liberties, checks executive power and gives law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Americans."

Yet to Himes, Larson and DeLauro voted no, saying they cannot continue to back a set of national security national security powers they find odious, particularly after Congress has repeatedly failed to address the concerns raised by defenders of the right to privacy.

"I have always held reservations about the Patriot Act, believing deeply in the importance of balancing the need for security with the need to protect the civil liberties that make our nation great,'' DeLauro said via email. "I voted last year for an extension of the three provisions in the bill that were not made permanent in order to give us time for careful oversight and debate on their implementation. But with no serious debate or any changes a year later, I am concerned that we are now just rubber-stamping these provisions annually."

Himes was especially outspoken."Voted against extension of Patriot Act,'' he tweeted. "We need some of it, but contains too many infringements on our constitutional right to privacy.''

In a phone conversation on Thursday, Himes elaborated. He said the Patriot Act was a "hastily arranged" response crafted in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"In the context of fear, people were willing to give up some liberties,'' he said. But nearly a decade later, Congress has had plenty of time to strike the right balance between fighting the threat of terrorism and preserving the individual liberties, he said.

Himes voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act during his first term to give Congress time to work on "the more intrusive aspects" of the law, but says he is now "not willing to keep playing the game" of extending it.

Critics of the Patriot Act like Himes, DeLauro and Larson have some unlikely allies on the Republican side of the aisle. Severla House members who are affiliated with the tea party movement joined Democrats in opposition to the legislation.